This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
As the table is inconsistent now with the constituency pages, and it can't be consistent unless the total results of the three minor parties are changed, which we can't, I would propose to go for the results of the Yearbook, which in turn are the most official, complete and definitive ones. With these, the totals for the minor parties are consistent with the other sources if the numbers for the main parties are changed (the changes would be in Districts One and Three). Togiad (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that there were some inconsistencies for CDS, IU and PCAN totals, so I've changed their figures to the ones shown in the BORM, Sierra and Regional Assembly sources (which in turn are consistent with the constituency results, though I've spotted an error in CDS result for District 5 which I've subsequently fixed (source said 2,228 and not 2,288). However, as you say, the issue is with the smaller parties, of which we don't have consistent data at the constituency level. Impru20talk 11:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Togiad: I finally found a reliable source for results: the electoral accounting control report from the Court of Auditors, page 414 of the pdf. It shows all final results for all parties (including minor ones), even at the constituency level, and one would argue this is a very trustworthy source considering the Court itself uses these results as a reference for proceeding to the electoral accounting control of the various parties. It actually shows that the correct figure for CDS in District 5 is 2,288 (and not 2,228 as reported in the Sierra source), but overall it matches results shown in the BORM (except for votes cast, which are slightly off in the BORM. These would have to be adjusted). Impru20talk 12:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great source indeed. It's a nightmare to have different numbers in every source. Thank you! Togiad (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
